United States military involvement in Syria would likely cost billions of dollars and carry a range of risks for the forces involved, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Monday.

"I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly," Dempsey wrote in the letter to Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is no less than an act of war."

Dempsey's letter was in response to a request by Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to provide his assessments of possible scenarios for future involvement in the Syrian civil war.

But it also came with a warning for a military now in a second decade at war.

"We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."

Establishing a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million initially, while "averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year," Dempsey said of an operation that would limit as much as possible the aerial bombing capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Dempsey said establishing a no-fly zone could result in the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require personnel recovery forces in Syria. "It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires - mortars, artillery, and missiles," he wrote.

Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites.

Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines."

"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month."

It is extremely rare for the costs of such operations to be laid out in such detail, and Dempsey also noted the potential costs of less expansive actions the United State could take.

Training, advising and supporting opposition forces could require as many as several thousand troops at an estimated cost of $500 million per year initially, Dempsey said.

Options for establishing safe zones or buffer areas to allow for the training of opposition forces, as well as areas for the safe distribution of humanitarian aid, would require a limited no-fly zone to keep the areas safe from the Assad regime's aerial bombardments. U.S. ground forces would be needed to defend the safe zones, Dempsey said.

This too, could cost a great deal of money and put lives at risk Dempsey wrote.

"A limited no-fly zone coupled with U.S. ground forces would push the costs over $1 billion per month," he wrote. "Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added problem of regime surface fires into the zones, killing more refugees due to their concentration. The zones could also become operational bases for extremists."

Dempsey said the use of periodic and limited strikes against regime military assets would also cost "billions" depending on the duration of such operations.

The letter comes at complex time in the evolution of the Obama administration's policy on Syria. Although the administration has recently signaled its readiness to provide certain arms to vetted factions of the Syrian opposition, there has been no movement of U.S. weapons due to concerns on Capitol Hill about how the program would work.

But Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signaled there may be movement on the issue in the coming days.

"The House Intelligence Committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success," Rogers said in a written statement Monday. "After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations."

McCain put a hold on Dempsey's nomination for a second term last week until he received greater detail from Dempsey about the various options available to intervene in Syria. It was unclear whether Dempsey's letter answered McCain's questions.

First and foremost, it requires a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress, subject to review and criticism in a functioning democracy. Inherent in that is Congress appropriating the funds for a declared war, and providing a plan to pay for it, unlike the last multi-branded effort that simply relied on supplemental funding, while watching coalition partners straddle the cost benefit relationship of growing their own economies by limiting support, while making trade in consumables that the U.S. forces were going to be the primary purchasers of.

The "tried and true" playbook for such efforts dates to the 50s and has only produced quagmire after quagmire, and propaganda funding on all sides. The people who wrote that playbook always insisted it worked, because admitting failure would be tantamount to treason, in a propaganda filled, " playing the long game" political shouting match, taught to the current participants by – those who told them to keep their mouths shut, their eyes open, " this is how you survive in DC", and " the countries we're trying to bring democracy to aren't paying their bills either, so we have to sell them stuff, forcefully."
Plus reconstruction aid and no- bid contracts are big moneymakers. Except when the U.S. population gets taxed over 5 times on the same product, including the advertising for the war itself. And can't provide the services domestically that the Humvees and tanks sent overseas require massive overhaul and maintenance for – like roads and bridges, and law enforcement.
England couldn't maintain the Raj, the French couldn't maintain what became Vietnam, and " training" in democracy building, for pols and soldiers alike, has to be successfully implemented domestically – First.

I have to laugh! What we need to ask is, "What would Charlie Wilson do?"

The answer is simple and could be a fix to a lot of problems. We know Al Qaida is sending fighters in as "rebels" and that Hezbollah is fighting for the Assad regime. Both of these groups hate the US and would love to kill you and me. We also have Russia sending expensive weapons to Syria which they will probably never be paid for. Sooooo....

What Charlie Wilson would do is send a bunch of Stinger missiles and small arms to the "rebels". Let the terrorists continue to fight each other in their secular holy war. A $40,000 Stinger vs a $20,000,000 Mig seems a good trade off, and worked out for us in Afghanistan in 1987. For those who didn't know, that was Charlie Wilson's idea. There is no need to send our kids to Syria. No need to put our planes up against Russian S300 missiles.

And see how well "Charlie Wilson's War" worked in Afghanistan. The Soviets WERE driven out. By the Taliban and al Qaida. Who became such dear friends of the United States that we are now in the longest war in United States history (except for the genocide of the Native Americans.) Yes, Afghanistan is SUCH a good example of how "limited military action" works for the interests of the United States.

To preserve American pride, honor and prestige, we must fight in Syria. The chairman of Joint Chief of Staff claimed that this can be done at one billion $ per month and assuming an involvement of 10 years, the total cost is only 120 billion $. Is American pride, honor and prestige do not worth 120 billion $ ?
I vote to invade Syria.

Here YOU go again. Send in the troops! It's a civil war folks. I am a Vietnam vet (24 years) and all three of my children and a daughter-in-law are now serving. We are all proud of our country and have proved we are will to die to defend it. However Syria is a civil war. Keep our military out of it.

TexTeacher, you are a Vietnam veteran. Look how well the second longest war in United States history (Vietnam) worked out. After thousands of American and millions of Vietnamese lives, the outcome was the same, an unaligned Marxist state in all of Vietnam, as it would have been back in the 1950s if the United States had stayed out and let Ho Chi Minh take over the country by a landslide election, which he would have done if the United States had not installed their puppet military junta in South Vietnam. You really want your children and grandchildren to pay that cost in lives and money for nothing? There is no choice in Syria. Is an Islamist Sunni dictatorship in Syria better than a not particularly religious Allouite (a type of Shiite) dictatorship that is there now? Let's look at Egypt. A secular military dictator was replaced by an Islamist military dictator which has now been replaced by a military junta. Is this an improvement?

September 3, 2013 at 11:01 am |

Bimbo the Birthday Clown

Gee Ferdinand, yours is the most idiotic comment I have seen here yet. By posting that manure above, it appears that you never got past the 4th grade in school. Even a moron would know better than that!

Great, we can't feed and take care of our own and now we can afford to care for another country.
Federal employees have not had a raise in 5 years and now we are losing 20% of our pay. But its fine to arm the rebels.
Stop the madness!!!!

Watch Gen.Dempsey get fired because he didn't cater to the Syrian rebels like McCain did in selling weapons and got the MIC mad at him as well..A general not warmongering like the republicans on Capital Hill something wrong here or has this man seen enough useless,senseless deaths,destruction in foriegn lands and wants peace for a change..Maybe Pres.Obamas vision of peace amongst all nations is rubbing off on some of these generals!!And do we want to arm rebels who at a later date might use our own weapons we gave them against US like in Afghanistan,I think not ,not again!!

Wow! A chairman of the joint chiefs who does not for a moment believe a military solution can produce heaven on earth. In fact, he doesn't seem very enthusiastic at all about intervention in a sectarian, genocidal war that started in the 7th century. I hope this guy might consider running for high office after retirement.

There are still many idiot blood-thirsty war mongars like McCain or fake liberal like John Kerry who have never learned the painful lesson of Iraq war with $trillions wasted. They would rather borrow money to invade, destroy and then rebuild other hopeless countries instead of rebuild America here. TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN FIRST

Obama will arm the rebels, probably has all ready. Iran and Russia are in there with both feet. And o'Idiot needs a distraction from his absolutely failed presidency. WTH the Middle East is in total disarray due to 'the obama doctrine', what's one more misstep for a distraction?

That's a good question, Jerry. Obama has managed to do almost everything wrong since he became President. Now he plans to drag this country into Syria's civil war exactly where it has no place at all!!!

@George,and what has Pres.Obama got wrong again,please elaberate for me..If you had said Bushs,Reagan,Nixon I'd say you're probibly right but this president looks good even against your obstructionistic morons in congress still getting it done whether you like it or not!Hey George answer this question bud how do you repeal something like the ACA bill that's been made law by the SCOTUS and still are trying even after 38 times,a waste of our tax payers money because that don't work for free do they George!!Read how you repeal it,its impossible because the last signature is the presidents and you know who that is right!!

July 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

George patton

That's simple, Pete. The main reason you can't repeal such laws is the fact that 90% of Congress are on the take, getting paid off in one way or another by the War lobby not to do so! The M.I.C. has become exponentially more powerful since the Days of Pres. Eisenhower.

@George,the ACA bill have parts that are created by republicans..Some of it by Romney in Romneycare so what's the big deal because the racist republicans don't want a black president in Obama going down in political history for creating,passing a beneficial national health plan that helps all America ...And yes I agree that most of congress is on the take from the MIC but if you research only about 30% of active republican reps ever served militarily while democrates have over 70% served and that's why democrates more than ever often advocate peace instead of war because they've seen what it brings in death,destruction much of republicans have run from,ask how many republicans have multiple deferrments just from serving in Nam.A quote from Eisenhower I'll give to you:the people of the world genuinely want peace,some day the leaders of the world are going to have to give in and give it to them!!I myself advocate staying out of Syria as you've read so yes George just stay on the sidelines and watch the fight this time peacefully!! And spend our defense funds at home where it can do the most good!!

And do exactly what, Its not only about revolution it also involves an older war. Support which rebels? This area is at the point beyond of trying to fix anything. Its one step forward and 5 steps backwards. Even if its left alone I don't think Assad can get a handle on it. All the cities will look like bones sticking out of the earth in a couple years.

Wake up early and take two stupid pills today? WW2 was nothing like Syria at all. This is rebels/terrorist trying to over a government. We may not like that government but it is not our fight and, we need to stay out of it completely.

How do you pay for these billions to interven? Let me remind you due to your Alz that we have paid more than $trillions to interven Iraq and Afg, with no end in sight. Stop to be the world police by borrowing and ignore our own people and shamble bridges, roads, school. TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE FIRST

The US was conned into believing that Assad used Sarin Gas in a battle. That was the excuse to propose sending weapons to the rebels. The Russians recently stated that it was home made Sarin used by a group of rebels that caused the deaths. The WH and senile old fools like McCain need reminded of the phrase, "Throwing gasoline on a fire". It probably came as a shock to that old geezer McCain that General Dempsey has pointed out all the negatives to their wanting to throw gas on the fire.

Syria has always been a secular state, where Muslims of all sects, Christians, Druze and other minority
religious groups lived peacefully, as neighbors. This is unprecedented
in other parts of the Middle East, including Qatar.

You tell me how these Islamist fighters fit into a future secular Syria. Mind
you, many of these fighters, the vast majority, are not even Syrian. Most of these groups operate under the moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) banner in hopes of getting a piece of the aid pie. But they all operate
independently, and there is no command and control in the FSA. The Islamists are in the majority. Any arms sent will end up in their hands. In Aleppo, for example, the Islamists disarmed the smaller rebel
actions fighting the government.

Sure we can it's not our fight and they should not have started a fight they could not win on their own.

July 23, 2013 at 7:19 am |

Shawn

If you feel so strongly, go over there and fight in THEIR civil war. It's not mine. Victory by one side over the other will not benefit our security. The latest recruiting commercial for the Navy about being a "Global Force for Good" is indicative of your position and is a bunch of B.S. It's not a force to "do good" throughout the world. It's a force to kill bad people that would try to attack us.

July 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

Charlies

A typical hypocritical liberal opinion that we can't let innocent people died. You know how many innocent American die each day? How many innocent Palestein children died under the name of "collateral damage" by Israel? Did you raise your hypocritical sympathy? TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE and COUNTRY FIRST

July 23, 2013 at 1:46 pm |

Jerry

Obama is intent on Turing the Middle East over to Islamists, the proof is in his actions. Good luck Asad

The problem I see is that when faced with NO ALTERNATIVE Assad MUST use his chemical weapons to survive, in the same manner that the US would use its Tactical Nukes if it was facing an overwhelming assault. It just seems silly to think otherwise.

And honestly is the US prepared for another warfront that could potentially draw in Iran or other neighbors,hmm maybe that is the plan.

The Syrian "mess" is just that! Any further involvement by the US would only make matters worse! McCain needs to shut up and go into blistful retirement, just like GWB! His days of mllitary "soulitions" is over. What does he want, another Bush style "Shock and Awe" program to bomb the Syrian people into "peace"? It did not work in Viet Nam, it did not work in Iraq, and hasn't changed one thing in Afghanistan nor Pakistan.
Sending in American troops and aircraft just gives both sides a new target! These people are happy and proud to be killing their own countrymen. Let them finish the total destuction of their own cites and all their culture! We, the US, don't even know who most of the "rebels" really are.
When the last armed Syrian crawls out of the rubble waving a white flag, slap him smartley and ask him who he wants to teach him how to live in peace. His choices: Russia, China or Israel! The USA will NOT be a choice. We, the US, cannot manage such a project, We have NO successes in Nation Building, NONE!

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Search Security Clearance

Share this blog

About this blog

CNN's Security Clearance examines national and global security, terrorism and intelligence, as well as the economic, military, political and diplomatic effects of it around the globe, with contributions from CNN's national security team in Washington and CNN journalists around the world.